Big Bang (Page 3)

Musical interlude... I clicked on this because I misread and thougth it said "Big Band"... now I have Glen Miller tunes stuck in my head.

Carry on.

You've just described the law of gravitational attraction, not a 'law of gravity'.  This is an observed phenomena, just like evolution.  Now, explain why.  Oh, we don't know why, therefore, there are many theorys of 'how' gravity works, and there is plenty of disagreement between researchers on the 'how', but gravity itself is not disputed.

You accept gravity as a given, because it's observable, even though there is no definitive answer of 'how'.  It is inconsistent to reject evolution on the same basis.

Also, do you use calculus in your work as an EE?  That's based on the theory of limits.  Another theory, not a 'law'.  Use of the word 'theory' does not denote uncertainty.  Please stop trying to convince people that it does. 

Unless that position happens to be against evolution you mean. 

As are the main tennets of evolution:

• Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
• Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
• Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
• Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Oh OK!  The light finally came on and now I understand and believe the theory law of evolution. 

~Mike

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. 

We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

Here are some of the transitional fossils which have been found:

• The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved.
  
• Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common, and they show a continuous record of almost two million years.
• Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change over that time period.
• The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards.
• Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic period.

A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. I'll let you look up what they each describe as a differentiator between species. 

But here's one: 

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila"

I appreciate your diligence in giving examples and citing sources.   The examples given above are really examples of changes w/i the species. 

Although the definition of species can be argued, as noted, it's really not a serious point of contention among scientists.  A horse is a horse is a horse....a mollusk, is a mollusk, is a mollusk.  The mollusk's shell may change slightly over time (which creationists/intelligent design proponents acknowledge), but this is a far stretch from a mollusk becoming another species. 

In reality, transitional forms are absent from the the fossil record.  This is not ignoring the evidence as mentioned above, but acknowledging that it is not there.  And that the examples pointed to by evolutionists can be explained by other, just as feasible, arguments:  micro-evolution or extinction.... 

Chris...Good luck at Kona by the way!! 

Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens. Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed, as noted.

When an organism has become so differentiated that it can no longer breed/reproduce with it's parent species, it becomes a new species.  It has reached a fork in the evolutionary road.

You seem to be arguing that because a mollusck does not change into a horse in one generation, that evolution doesn't take place.  That sort of change is not what is described by the theory of evolution, so your example is rediculous.

Over 3 generations, there won't be much difference.  Keep in mind that we're talking massive timescales here, stretching millions of years.  With complex organisms such as horses and dogs, the generational lifespan is long enough that observation of speciation is impractical through direct methods.

Boggling my mind here.  Transitional forms are NOT absent from the record, see the examples I listed above, some of which stretch for a period of over 10 million years!  Claiming that transitional fossil evidence doesn't exist is absolutely ignoring it.

Back to your 'horse is a horse is a horse' here's some interesting reading for you:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html 

Chris,

You've basically restated my objections in different words.  I realize Micro and Macro are two different things....thus the reason that I brought it up.  I understand completely that a mollusk doesn't change into a horse in one generation.  Sorry if it seemed I was implying that...hopefully anyone reading this would come to a different conclusion of the point I was making. 

However, I also don't believe there is fossil or other evidence to show that a mollusk will become a horse or any other species over a long period of time. 

The example you give of mutation and change in the genus Chesapecten is a great example....

• "Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change over that time period."

The mutation stayed w/i the species and it is still a Scallop...even after 13 million years (which I believe is an assumption by the researcher).  Once again, the transitional forms given as examples are those of microevolution; changes w/i the species;  not macroevolution upon which the theory of evolution rests....

Sorry we disagree, I'm not ignoring the fossil record....I just don't see the evidence supporting macroevolution that you see.  I see micro not macro evolution.  And the examples given support micro...

As far as horses....here's an opposing view...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp

• "Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change over that time period." (see examples above)

Another interesting observation about this example.  The researcher says it took 13 million years for this change to happen.  A very small change w/i a species.  Assuming the earth is 5 billion years old (opinions vary), and assuming that the mollusk started out as a mollusk and didn't have to begin the evolutionary process from a single cell organism. That means this species would have another 384 chances to change into something other than a mollusk (5 billion / 13 million).  The probability that this could happen is extremely low. 

This is one reason why the I/D, Creation crowd look to faith for the answer to origins....

It took 1 billion years for life to appear after the earth cooled.  If anything, that merely shows that change is accelerating.  It is invalid ( nor does the fossil evidence support ) to assume a constant rate of change.  In fact, quite the opposite is the widely supported theory, and many of the other examples of transitional fossils ( which you claim do not exist ) show a different and in most cases more rapid, rate of change.

If there is an intelligent designer, why are there mistakes?  If there's intelligence behind the design, there should be no evolutionary dead-ends, yet there are plenty of examples of forks in evolution where one "branch" lives on, and another fades into non-existance.

If you wish to turn to faith, that's your decision, but please do not try to dress faith up in scientific garb, it only looks foolish, and does a disservice to faith.  And you must be honest that your faith is a belief in an idea in light of substantial evidence to the contrary.

How do you explain the gradual progression in morphology as we move from older fossils to younger fossils? 

Archaeopteryx - Transition from reptiles to birds.  Is that macro enough for you?

Ahh yes, the "all fossils were laid during the "Flood" and therefore are all the same age and those dumb scientists are just confusing ponys and horses of different sizes and shapes to show sequential changes in morphology" argument.   

Chris, great stuff. Thanks.

I only understand the basic skeleton of evolutionary science, pun intended , so your posts are really helpful for filling in the missing links. (pun also intened )

Seriously, I'd like to study the science of this more so that I can understand it better. Your posts have been really helpful in coming to a better understanding.

By "faith" what do you mean here?

Do you mean "faith" in a particular biblical belief in how we got here, such as a literal interpretaion of the Bible?

Or do you mean "faith" that we are created in the image and likeness of God?

Or do you mean, possibly, just "faith" in God?

If it's the first, I got no dog in that fight, so I'll go on being a reader of this fascinating thread.

If it's the second or third, then I guess I gots more to say about that.

What say you, Mr. going to Kona?

I was wondering if you'd join in. 

Faith was first used by someone else, so I won't speak to what their interpretation of faith is.  I will however, give you my interpretation.

What many people call 'faith' is a crutch that they use to avoid reason.  It is merely another word for belief in their use of the word.  Their faith is in something that they have been told to believe.  A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief.  Belief alone does not mean anything.  People believe in UFOs and bigfoot too.  True faith ( to me ) is an acceptance of what one has come find as the truth, and that cannot be found without introspective reasoning and arriving at a determination on ones own.  It must come from within, not from following someone else.

True religious faith and evolution can coexist peacefully.  Only a literal interpretation of the Bible and refusal to view scientific evidence objectively precludes evolution.

Here's an interesting project to build ( or reinforce ) a bridge between science and religion, rather than widen the chasm:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm 

I'll explain what I meant by faith....

Biblical faith is more akin to the word "trust" than anything else.  It is a reliance on the revealed nature of God.  Whether that revelation is in creation (Romans 1:20) or the written/spoken word.  The word belief in the New Testament goes beyond an intellectual assent to a heart trust and reliance. 

I like to use the example of governmental philosophy.  A person can understand, through study, all kinds of governmental systems: socialism, democracy, communism, theocracy, etc.  But they land on one that they "believe" is right.  Thus, the difference between "knowing" something and having "faith" in something.  Most Americans would say they understand both communism and democracy....but that they believe in democracy.

Many people say they believe in God (Barna says 95% of Americans do).  When asked further what this means, they indicate that it is an "intellectual assent" to the reality of God.  Faith goes beyond this intellectual assent to a trust/reliance on this God.  And, in the case of Christianity, beyond that to a trust in his Son, Jesus Christ, as Deity and Savior.

How does this relate to origins....that science and the revelation from God (creation and written) will eventually reconcile to a complete agreement.

ps....oh, now it is time to get back to my Hebrew.  As I am trying to study this for myself and not relying on someone telling me what to believe :-)

Shawn,

Do you then take a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible as your basis for rejecting evolution?

And that you are completely closed to the possibility of science ever supplying sufficient evidence to sway your belief?

Chris,

I'll need to respond later in some more detail as my morning and early afternoon are filled...

A literalist interpretation of the Bible does not preclude seeing the use of metaphor and allegory used as literary devices in Scripture.  Jesus said he was a "door".  The metaphor is obvious.  He said certain religous leaders were "white washed tombs".  He's using a metaphor to show a spiritual truth. 

A literalist can be very open to the scientific method (although not all are and that is unfortunate).  I personally know several MD's who are literalists.  They love science, have studied it, and make their livlihood from it.  Yet they too do not whole-heartedly embrace the theory of evolution. Why?  Are they just ignorant?  Are they self deceived?  I don't believe so.  They, as I, have not come to the same conclusions about the evidence as secular evolutionists.

I don't reject the entire theory.  As mentioned, there is no denying the change w/i species and the direct observation from the scientific method....fruit flys as you mentioned.  And my rejection is based more on assumptions w/i theory than a literlist view of Scripture.  I will submit that your exmample of the Archaeopteryx could be an example from the fossil record of a transitional form.  This is not the only explanation, but is a valid one.

There is also the opinion that Christians, literalists and even those more to the left, are afraid of science.  And some are.  However, most are not.  As I mentioned above one of the tenets of the evangelical faith system is that science and Scripture will eventually be shown to complement each other if given time and study.  There have been many great scientists of the past who also embraced Christ, his teachings, and a literal interpretation of Scriptures.

Wish I had more time to write about this; but it will have  to wait until after the Hebrew test this morning :-)

I haven't had much to say about it.

I tend to believe that evolution happened in the way you laid it out.

I believe that too.

Here's where we may differ. I not only believe that they can coexist, but that they are both needed faith and a science that can discover something like evolution are both needed to come to the fullest understanding of reality. Faith and Reason are both needed.

Two additonal disciplines, along with science, that help explain the beliefs of Faith are philosophy and theology.

So I think that the tools of science, philosophy, and theology are the trinity, if you will, that need to be used in order to come to the deepest understanding of Truth. All three of these are disciplines that ought to be based in Reason.

With Reason as the lingua franca, we can bridge that chasm that has developed around issues like evolution.

Just as an example of what I mean by needing Faith and Reason:

I think that I am indeed the nephew of a monkey. I think it's reasonable that all life evolved from some common source.

At the same time, I believe in what Jefferson taught when he wrote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, it would be interesting to take a look at the concept of unalienable Rights using strictly the scientific method. I think, though, in the process of doing that we'll find that all sorts of thorny moral questions and dilemas will pop up. And I think that it will be very difficult to reconcile those thorny moral questions with Jefferson's belief that we are endowed with unalienable Rights, using the scientific method alone.

Interesting... what's the gist of the story.... 

Got it.

That's the problem. I haven't yet seen an explanation for the meaning of human life that is based in a materialist philosophy or based strictly on scientific evidence that doesn't face the same conclusion.

Which means, as you say, that there are no unalienable rights.

If that's the case, though, then a person can't lobby for some right or privilege by making a moral claim. They can't say, for example, that slavery is wrong because everyone has the right to liberty. According to this view, someone only has the right to liberty if the powers that be say they have the right to liberty.

So today we agree that slavery is wrong. But there's nothing standing in the way of deciding tomorrow that slavery is moral and justified.